AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen. One issue I have with going to war with ISIS is that it lends credence to their claim to be the Islamic STATE. You don't declare war on non-state-combatants. In fact, the very idea of a 'war on terror' is incoherent. So, to declare war on ISIS gives them something they badly want. I'm actually surprised to hear that the FBI, NSA, and DHS have said there's no way to vet the refugees. I'd appreciate a link. Not trying to challenge your claims, I just am curious to see what was said. I would have thought that bringing in refugees would help us kill a few birds with one stone. If we can vet them and identify the bad guys, then it makes it that much easier to catch the bad guys. If we are seen as hospitable to Muslims, rather than hostile, that undermines ISIS. Plus, it's just the right thing to do, morally and politically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 If we are seen as hospitable to Muslims, rather than hostile, that undermines ISIS. Plus, it's just the right thing to do, morally and politically speaking. The problem is, those fleeing know all too well what ISIS are capable of doing, so they need no such lesson. Second, other nations in Europe are putting up fences and telling them to go away, and yet they still come. It doesn't seem like they care very much , either way, if we welcome them or not. Thirdly, flatly stating " it's the right thing to do " doesn't mean it is. There is no active Ellis Island anymore. We have no way of vetting these folks, screening them health wise, as we'd do w/ those coming in under normal conditions. And back to your first point, we don't need to show anyone how charitable we are, as a nation. But we're also smart enough and pragmatic enough to be able to help folks in need w/ out blindly swinging open our doors and letting in yet MORE people. Obama has ( yes, this was his doing , believe it or not ) brought in 10's of 10000's of immigrants from central America, with out such screenings, and it's caused chaos already. All those "minors " we had coming into the country last summer, who just showed up? That was orchestrated by this administration. On purpose. His goal ? Basically to bring as many 3rd world people here as he can, get them hooked on big govt, and have them vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. Pretty ******* sinister, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If we are seen as hospitable to Muslims, rather than hostile, that undermines ISIS. Plus, it's just the right thing to do, morally and politically speaking. The problem is, those fleeing know all too well what ISIS are capable of doing, so they need no such lesson. Second, other nations in Europe are putting up fences and telling them to go away, and yet they still come. It doesn't seem like they care very much , either way, if we welcome them or not. Thirdly, flatly stating " it's the right thing to do " doesn't mean it is. There is no active Ellis Island anymore. We have no way of vetting these folks, screening them health wise, as we'd do w/ those coming in under normal conditions. And back to your first point, we don't need to show anyone how charitable we are, as a nation. But we're also smart enough and pragmatic enough to be able to help folks in need w/ out blindly swinging open our doors and letting in yet MORE people. Obama has ( yes, this was his doing , believe it or not ) brought in 10's of 10000's of immigrants from central America, with out such screenings, and it's caused chaos already. All those "minors " we had coming into the country last summer, who just showed up? That was orchestrated by this administration. On purpose. His goal ? Basically to bring as many 3rd world people here as he can, get them hooked on big govt, and have them vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. Pretty ******* sinister, if you ask me. That is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If we are seen as hospitable to Muslims, rather than hostile, that undermines ISIS. Plus, it's just the right thing to do, morally and politically speaking. The problem is, those fleeing know all too well what ISIS are capable of doing, so they need no such lesson. Second, other nations in Europe are putting up fences and telling them to go away, and yet they still come. It doesn't seem like they care very much , either way, if we welcome them or not. Thirdly, flatly stating " it's the right thing to do " doesn't mean it is. There is no active Ellis Island anymore. We have no way of vetting these folks, screening them health wise, as we'd do w/ those coming in under normal conditions. And back to your first point, we don't need to show anyone how charitable we are, as a nation. But we're also smart enough and pragmatic enough to be able to help folks in need w/ out blindly swinging open our doors and letting in yet MORE people. Obama has ( yes, this was his doing , believe it or not ) brought in 10's of 10000's of immigrants from central America, with out such screenings, and it's caused chaos already. All those "minors " we had coming into the country last summer, who just showed up? That was orchestrated by this administration. On purpose. His goal ? Basically to bring as many 3rd world people here as he can, get them hooked on big govt, and have them vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. Pretty ******* sinister, if you ask me. It is the right thing to do to help people fleeing war. It's not my stating it that makes it right. Syrians are not the only Muslims out there. I'm not talking about whether it will make us appear hospitable to the refugees themselves (whether the refugees will like us better). I'm suggesting that anti-Muslim hostility -- whether it's directed at Syrian refugees or other Muslims -- plays into the hands of ISIS. It's a lot easier to radicalize people who feel hated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Ouch. 26 other states now are denying Syrians to be resettled with in their borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Ouch. 26 other states now are denying Syrians to be resettled with in their borders. Yep. This is a hit piece on the state of Alabama. But we've opened ourselves up to it. I'll grant that it was politically smart of Bentley, given that he answers to Alabama voters. But it also plays into the hands of the liberal press that Alabama was the first to come out against allowing Syrian refugees. AUUSN's posts have been over the top; but they're not far off from how other folks around the country see Alabama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,872 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 If it is cool with all of you, I'd like to ask a question on topic. Heard French dude (PM maybe?) went on a rant and declared merciless unwavering attacks on ISIS. Was this just dude being angry? Or is France saying **** Geneva and our current accepted rules? Since I heard the sound bite I haven't seen anything else about them going above and beyond the rules. ISIS took claim for the attack, and France has declared formal war on ISIS. Let me repeat that... France is at war with ISIS. The " dude ", President Hollande, I am guessing is who you meant. Obama , in stark contrast, has called the murder / maiming of some 500 citizens " a set back " . Did you seriously quote me, while ignoring everything I posted? LMAO My question was if France was wiping their ass with the rules of war set forth by the geneva convention and others, not IF they were at war with ISIS. Being formally at war, and declaring you will be merciless in your slaughter of them is two very different things. I didn't bring up the beautiful pegasus, you did... again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Ouch. Good piece! "Alabama poses a greater risk to Syrian refugees than those refugees pose to Alabama. Syrian refugees are fleeing murder, rape, torture, barrel bombs, and chemical weapon attacks. Maybe they deserve something better than a state that has failed across almost every measure of government competence.".... "Syrians have risked everything to escape a murderous regime and the Islamic fanatics marauding across these lands. There may be no people who cling to life more than Syrian refugees, entire families who have boarded rafts and trekked thousands of miles to avoid certain death. Alabama would be lucky to have such people. But instead they are stuck with Bentley."... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,646 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Whatever works.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yep it is hard if not impossible. The question for our astute liberal leaders is "if i give you 10 grapes and tell you one of them is poison, will you eat them all? But not ALL the grapes are poison, so you can't throw them all away because just 1 MIGHT be bad ! Well, in fact, the analogy is flawed from the very start...because humans are not grapes that can or should be 'thrown away' based on mere whim, suspicion, or fear! We don't starve, abandon, neglect, forsake, imprison, mistreat, etc. nine innocent human beings because there may be a tenth bad apple among them (if I may mix fruit metaphors )...unless we are letting fear supersede compassion, mercy, and morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 The analogy works fine with me but spin it if you want. The question is really simple......if I give you 10 grapes and tell you one is poisoned will you eat them all? Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Doing the right thing is always going to leave you open to the liberal press. They are blind loyalist to the cause, and anything that a conservative promotes, they view is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yep it is hard if not impossible. The question for our astute liberal leaders is "if i give you 10 grapes and tell you one of them is poison, will you eat them all? But not ALL the grapes are poison, so you can't throw them all away because just 1 MIGHT be bad ! Well, in fact, the analogy is flawed from the very start...because humans are not grapes that can or should be 'thrown away' based on mere whim, suspicion, or fear! We don't starve, abandon, neglect, forsake, imprison, mistreat, etc. nine innocent human beings because there may be a tenth bad apple among them (if I may mix fruit metaphors ;)/> )...unless we are letting fear supersede compassion, mercy, and morality. We don't blindly open the door to anyone and everyone either, knowing that one of them may very well be connected to Militant Islam. Our compassion does not force us to swallow a poison pill. In order for freedom to exist, we must be vigilant to the dangers in the real world. You don't overload the lifeboat because you want to save everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen. Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check? Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'. Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yep it is hard if not impossible. The question for our astute liberal leaders is "if i give you 10 grapes and tell you one of them is poison, will you eat them all? But not ALL the grapes are poison, so you can't throw them all away because just 1 MIGHT be bad ! Well, in fact, the analogy is flawed from the very start...because humans are not grapes that can or should be 'thrown away' based on mere whim, suspicion, or fear! We don't starve, abandon, neglect, forsake, imprison, mistreat, etc. nine innocent human beings because there may be a tenth bad apple among them (if I may mix fruit metaphors ;)/> )...unless we are letting fear supersede compassion, mercy, and morality. We don't blindly open the door to anyone and everyone either, knowing that one of them may very well be connected to Militant Islam. As if anyone suggested that. :-\ What we are hearing is that we should close the door to all refugees. Our compassion does not force us to swallow a poison pill. In order for freedom to exist, we must be vigilant to the dangers in the real world. You don't overload the lifeboat because you want to save everybody. The U.S. is hardly an "overloaded lifeboat". :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen. Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check? Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'. Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue. And more often than not, those refugees have benefited our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Our compassion does not force us to swallow a poison pill. In order for freedom to exist, we must be vigilant to the dangers in the real world. You don't overload the lifeboat because you want to save everybody. The U.S. is hardly an "overloaded lifeboat". :-\ Holy crap, this dude. Lebanon has taken in over 1 million refugees and he calls the U.S. an overloaded lifeboat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Our compassion does not force us to swallow a poison pill. In order for freedom to exist, we must be vigilant to the dangers in the real world. You don't overload the lifeboat because you want to save everybody. The U.S. is hardly an "overloaded lifeboat". :-\ Holy crap, this dude. Lebanon has taken in over 1 million refugees and he calls the U.S. an overloaded lifeboat? He has a real flair for the hyperbolic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yep it is hard if not impossible. The question for our astute liberal leaders is "if i give you 10 grapes and tell you one of them is poison, will you eat them all? But not ALL the grapes are poison, so you can't throw them all away because just 1 MIGHT be bad ! Well, in fact, the analogy is flawed from the very start...because humans are not grapes that can or should be 'thrown away' based on mere whim, suspicion, or fear! We don't starve, abandon, neglect, forsake, imprison, mistreat, etc. nine innocent human beings because there may be a tenth bad apple among them (if I may mix fruit metaphors )...unless we are letting fear supersede compassion, mercy, and morality. Nice post, quietfan. I understand that there seems to be a split along party lines regarding the refugee question. I'm just not sure I understand why. It seems to me to be a very clear moral and political obligation to take in some of the refugees -- and probably a lot more than we have already pledged to do, given our resources. I'm sure my opinion on this will get me labled as a 'liberal'. For the record, I don't much like either of our major political parties, and I try to decide things on a case-by-case basis, rather than subsuming all my judgment under a party platform or a political philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 With the open borders that this administration has promoted, and piling on more and more unvetted "refugees" from a sectatian Civil War, to deny that we arent an overloaded lifeboat is to fully admit ignorance of a colossal nature. We're $19 trillion over debt. We're letting more and more people come in , unvetted , and putting them on the public dole. Jobs are already hard to come by in Obama's economy. Food stamps are at an all time high. Just stop acting like this isn't a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 With the open borders that this administration has promoted, and piling on more and more unvetted "refugees" from a sectatian Civil War, to deny that we arent an overloaded lifeboat is to fully admit ignorance of a colossal nature. We're $19 trillion over debt. We're letting more and more people come in , unvetted , and putting them on the public dole. Jobs are already hard to come by in Obama's economy. Food stamps are at an all time high. Just stop acting like this isn't a big deal. Lebanon GDP = 47.3 Billion U.S. GDP = 14 Trillion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I realize that this may get things off topic, but while we are at it, why don't we as a country start working to eliminate malaria in Africa? Why don't we work to provide safe drinking water for Africans? It is a little silly that we don't mind ignoring a whole continent of people, but we worry about not being compassionate if we don't take in tens of thousands of "refugees". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 With the open borders that this administration has promoted, and piling on more and more unvetted "refugees" from a sectatian Civil War, to deny that we arent an overloaded lifeboat is to fully admit ignorance of a colossal nature. We're $19 trillion over debt. We're letting more and more people come in , unvetted , and putting them on the public dole. Jobs are already hard to come by in Obama's economy. Food stamps are at an all time high. Just stop acting like this isn't a big deal. Why do you keep repeating that the refugees will be unvetted? As far as I can tell, that's completely false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I realize that this may get things off topic, but while we are at it, why don't we as a country start working to eliminate malaria in Africa? Why don't we work to provide safe drinking water for Africans? It is a little silly that we don't mind ignoring a whole continent of people, but we worry about not being compassionate if we don't take in tens of thousands of "refugees". Actually, I do think we should be working to provide safe drinking water and fighting common killer diseases around the world. It's at least questionable to me whether the 'war on cancer' or the 'war on drugs' ought to be higher priorities than safe drinking water and ending malaria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.